Requester doesn’t have to cite RTKL or use form

Published on

Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. Office of Open Records
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1134 C.D. 2009
June 11, 2012

The Commonwealth Court decided that, within reason, any written request for records to an agency employee suffices for a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request. As a result, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board was wrong to ignore the requester’s e-mail simply because he did not specifically reference the RTKL or use a specific form.

Background

James D. Schneller, a member of Eastern Pennsylvania Citizens Against Gambling, sent an e-mail to the Gaming Board’s communication office. The e-mail included a request for copies of communications between the Gaming Board and applicants for gaming licenses as well as the financial information submitted by license applicants to the Gaming Board.

While the Gaming Board responded to the email, it ignored the request for records.

Ten days later, Schneller assumed his request for records was denied, and he appealed to the OOR, which ordered the Gaming Board to disclose the requested records. The Gaming Board appealed.

Commonwealth Court decision

On appeal, the only issue that the court considered was whether Schneller’s email was a proper request under the RTKL. The RTKL’s protections apply only to proper written requests.

According to the law, the request must be “addressed to the open records officer” of an agency, and agencies are required to “forward requests for records to the open records officer.” The court interpreted these provisions broadly to mean that requests must be directed to an employee of the agency, and that employees must then direct the requests to the agency’s open records officer. A request does not need to be addressed to the individual who is the agency’s open records officer.

Further, the court determined, a request for records does not need to specifically cite the RTKL. All that is required by the law is that a request must be sufficiently specific “to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested and shall include a name and address to which the agency should address its response.”

Ultimately, the court vacated the OOR’s order to the Gaming Board to disclose the records and sent the case back to the Gaming Board to determine whether the requested records are exempt from disclosure.